I think the first part of that is some of the ramifications from Vancouver. The huge controversy and talk about a skater like Evan winning without a quad, a skater who cant even do a proper triple axel and doesnt have anymore than generic "good" artistry, doesnt have amazing skating skills either, was seen by many as the ultimate low for the sport. It would be one thing seeing a great skater without a quad (eg Jeff Buttle) or a great skater without a triple axel (eg Stephane Lambiel) winning but a skater like Evan winning without the quad? So to make sure something like that never happens again they made changes, raising the value of quads, giving out far more generous PCS to those who did quads especialy who had deserved fairly good PCS to begin with, and ended up overcompensating too far to the point nobody without a quad now has a chance, even vs messy performances with those with one.

Is this actually true?? That all of these changes in the judging came from people feeling that Evan didn't deserve the gold medal? I must confess this is the first I'd heard of this.

It has been mentioned publicly that a member of Evan's family is also quite ill. Must be an incredibly challenging time for the whole family. Sending out positive healing wishes to Evan and his family.

One more very important point to make re the Quad- it is still not clear whether programs loaded with quads will in fact become "the norm" in men's figure skating, and this is due in part to the emerging understanding of what a toll quad jumping takes on the body. All 3 of the 2002 medalists have suffered severe repercussions as a result of their constant quad jumping. I listened to Tim Goebel's TSL interview last night and was struck by how squarely he puts the blame for his terrible injuries and decline on his repeated quads. He gives some hope in that he says younger skaters coming up need to practice quads less often and they need to do more stretching and compensatory strengthening to offset some of the issues that can arise, but it is clear that doing so many quads came at a price for him- he lost a few precious years of his competitive prime and has had surgeries while still battling chronic pain. The same is true of young girls who did too many triple-triples- Tara L being a prime example. I don't think that pushing men's figure skating forward necessarily needs to involve a continual upgrade in difficulty, especially if that upgrade leads to careers being cut short, athletes requiring surgery, etc.

This is what worries me also. I hate thinking of all those skaters almost guaranteeing a lifetime of medical problems just so they can win medals and give enjoyment to fans, when such jumps are not necessary to a great skating program.

I think a lot of things have changed in training &c - from a very recent Plushenko interview:

"Actually, because of what I have so many injuries? Never in my life I did not have a team that would have made ​​sure that I correctly recovering after exertion. Doctors, massage therapists. In the 12 years I taught Axel with 2.5 turns, in the 13 years I have made ​​it. In the 14 years I have been already doing a quadruple jump. The organism was not yet formed, the bones were weak, and I have done these complex elements! And in the team was only the coach and choreographer.."

And in his time, Chris Howarth badly injured himself over-training the 3Lz. And the subsequent operation didn't exactly help either, after what I understood. (From a Manleywoman interview done with him a few years back.)

Hopefully knowledge has grown, and the training regime differs - and the athletes will have less severe injuries.

Besides, not many sports are without risk - and figure skating is, when all is considered, not the most dangerous. After all, at least a figure skater is not liable to go up in a blazing inferno... And nonetheless motor sports are still with us, and will so remain. (Hopefully, they too are more safe now - but I don't know much about the subject, I confess.)

Is this actually true?? That all of these changes in the judging came from people feeling that Evan didn't deserve the gold medal? I must confess this is the first I'd heard of this.

The ISU does try to revise the code of points each year, in part with reference to how well it worked the previous season. When they were working on the preliminary version back in 2002, they tested it against the 2002 Olympics. With the point values that they were considering at the time, Tim Goebel, with three quads in the LP, won the gold medal. Well, this wasn't right, so they tinkered with it until Yagudin came out on top, which everyone agreed was the correct outcome.

When Jeffrey Buttle and others started winning championships with a choreographed fall on an under-rotated quad, the ISU responded by increasing the penalties for under-rotations and falls to take away this strategy. In this, they went too far and eased up in later versions.

The real controversy in CoP changes after the 2010 Olympics was not in men's but in ladies. Yuna Kim had clobbered the opposition by a record score. The next year the ISU decided to decrease the value of GOEs by 30% (Kim's huge lead came about because of high GOEs on every element), and also to forbid three double Axels in the LP (Kim's layout featured three double Axels, which allowed her to present a strong jump card while omitting the triple loop). At the same time they raised the value of the triple Axel -- a move that helped only Kim's closest rival. Kim fans were irate, but I don't think the ISU was deliberately picking on Kim as an individual. Rather, I think they felt that the results of the competition exposed flaws in the CoP that needed to be fixed.

The ISU does try to revise the code of points each year, in part with reference to how well it worked the previous season.....
I don't think the ISU was deliberately picking on Kim as an individual. Rather, I think they felt that the results of the competition exposed flaws in the CoP that needed to be fixed.

I think/hope you are right. I guess they wanted the CoP to encourage mastery of all triple jump types (as it should), so that skater(s) that could do them all would get awarded appropriately. As long as the CoP still allows skaters who perform exquisite programs without all jump types to defeat flawed performances by skaters with all jump types, I think fans of the sport will be happy.

The real controversy in CoP changes after the 2010 Olympics was not in men's but in ladies. Yuna Kim had clobbered the opposition by a record score. The next year the ISU decided to decrease the value of GOEs by 30% (Kim's huge lead came about because of high GOEs on every element), and also to forbid three double Axels in the LP (Kim's layout featured three double Axels, which allowed her to present a strong jump card while omitting the triple loop). At the same time they raised the value of the triple Axel -- a move that helped only Kim's closest rival. Kim fans were irate, but I don't think the ISU was deliberately picking on Kim as an individual. Rather, I think they felt that the results of the competition exposed flaws in the CoP that needed to be fixed.

I disagree with your characterization of the events. As a Yu-Na fan and a skating fan, I didn't and don't have a problem with the reduction of positive GOEs (the effect of which has been negated since judges are now more generous in the distribution of GOE), or the raising of the base value for the triple axel (which was raised because the base value for the quads were raised). I never thought those rule changes were the ISU picking on Yu-Na.

And, I wouldn't have had a problem with the reduction of the three double axels to two, had the ISU not broken precedent and allowed the 3A in the SP for the ladies. Now THAT was corrupt and done solely to benefit Mao Asada. It was and will always be a travesty that was committed to give one individual skater a big advantage over her competition. This was all documented in the Goldenskate archives, by the way. Ironically, Mao's own mistakes (i.e. missing the 3Loop in the 2013 Worlds SP) have prevented her from benefiting more frequently from this rule change, but it is undoubtedly a big advantage that she didn't earn.

The rule is fair. When you are capable of doing a 3Axel, it's silly that you HAVE to still do a 2Axel in your SP after completing a 3Axel+2Toe combo.

It wasn't instituted at a time that makes it fair to the field. The ISU didn't allow the men to do a solo 3A or a solo quad in the SP until many had proven over the years that they were capable of doing the jump. They didn't institute the rule when only one male skater was capable of doing a 3A or a quad--because that would have given that skater too big of a competitive advantage in the short program.

Same for the ladies with the triple out of footwork, or the triple/triple in the SP. They weren't allowed to do it until numerous ladies had shown they could do it over a number of years; it was proven that no single individual would be the sole beneficiary.

It may have been silly that Kristi Yamaguchi and Midori Ito were doing doubles out of footwork in the SP in 1992, and you can say that the ISU was overly cautious, but at least they never gave one skater a big leg up over the others in the short program. Until 2010, that is.

3Axel+2Toe is more difficult than 3Lutz+3Toe, yet it's worth less points under the current CoP. Think about it.

This is really a separate issue. I wouldn't have a problem with a combination bonus that awards bonuses based on the difficulty of the first jump (and if necessary a smaller bonus based on the second jump).

But why automatically blame the system as opposed to the skater's strategy? Mao's decision to attempt the 3A/2T instead of her 3F/3Lo (which is ALSO worth more than a 3Lz/3T AND a 3A/2T) was questionable. Had she stuck with the 3/3, she probably would've gotten it ratified at the Olympics.

There is definitely a weakness of the system that doesn't explicitly reward combinations, but it applies to numerous skaters and situations, and Mao was not being singled out. When Yu-Na switched her SP layout from 3F/3T and a 3Lz to a 3Lz/3T and a 3F, she gained nothing in base value though the difficulty of her combination increased. A 3Lz/3Lo, which Miki was attempting, was worth more than either a 3Lz/3T or a 3A/2T, but did anyone complain about that? No.